Article ID: 20f236910d600ed268303af421df3a5d0fc3009b2c1d49ff3924cddd83559e1d
Source ID: secondary:businessinsurance.com
Published At: -
Extraction Method: bs4_heuristic
URL: https://www.businessinsurance.com/judge-finds-no-duty-to-defend-in-adidas-trademark-suit/
Body Text
Judge finds no duty to defend in Adidas trademark suit - Business Insurance Skip to content Register for free Search Search Log In Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Judge finds no duty to defend in Adidas trademark suit by Richard Sine Coverage Disputes Aug 12, 2026 A unit of Allianz has no duty to defend apparel maker Aviator Nation in a long-running trademark infringement lawsuit brought by Adidas America, a federal judge ruled Monday. In Aviator Nation, Inc. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., Venice, California-based Aviator Nation argued Fireman’s Fund was obligated to defend it against Adidas’ lawsuit, which accuses the clothing brand of infringing Adidas’ three-stripe trademark with its five-stripe loungewear. Adidas, headquartered in Germany with U.S. operations based in Portland, Oregon, sued Aviator Nation and its founder, Paige Mycoskie, in Oregon federal court in 2024, alleging the company continued selling striped apparel despite three prior settlement agreements dating back to 2012. Aviator Nation argued its commercial general liability policies covered the dispute because Adidas’ allegations could support claims that the company misused Adidas’ “advertising idea” or infringed its trade dress, both offenses covered under the policies’ personal and advertising injury provisions. Chief U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California agreed that the trade dress theory could potentially trigger coverage, but found the claim was barred by the policies’ prior publication exclusion. Judge Gee determined that Aviator Nation’s more recent five-stripe apparel designs were not meaningfully different from the three-stripe designs it began selling before its coverage with Fireman’s Fund began in 2020, meaning any wrongdoing was a continuation of conduct that predated the policies. “The Court can find no meaningful distinction between the allegations regarding the five-stripe design and the three-stripe design, where the objective of both designs is to prominently display three stripes,” Judge Gee wrote. “The five-stripe design is not a ‘fresh wrong’ because it infringes on the same Adidas mark in a substantially similar way as the three-stripe design.” Related News Risk managers tap captives to provide control, flexibility August 12, 2026 Amynta Group makes Southern States buy August 12, 2026 Boom by 2030 forecast for global data center insurance market August 12, 2026 Cash lender owed no defense in $1 billion fraud case, judge rules August 12, 2026 Prison worker’s training injury comp claim, not constitutional seizure August 12, 2026 AI agent muscles into gym waitlist August 12, 2026 Maritime law bars consortium claim by seaman’s wife August 12, 2026 Business Insurance announces Women to Watch winners August 12, 2026 East Asian nations brace for historic typhoon season August 12, 2026 Facebook-f X-twitter Linkedin-in Business Insurance is a singular, authoritative news and information source for executives focused upon risk management, risk transfer and risk financing. Never miss important news: Become a Business Insurance Online subscriber today Subscribe Now Information About Us Contact Advertise Privacy Policy Terms & Conditions Copyright 2026. BUSINESS INSURANCE HOLDINGS Member, Beacon International Group, Ltd.
Metadata (JSON)
{
"score": 12.883333333333333
}